The petitioners claim to be persons who were being engaged as casual labourers by respondents 2 to 4. According to the petitioners they were being engaged for more than a decade. When attempts were made to disengage them they had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.942/2000. Ext.P2 is the order that was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Paragraph 4 of the said order reads as follows:- “Since the fact that the applicants 2 and 3 had rendered casual service earlier is not disputed and their names figure in Annexure A4 list in view of what is stated in paragraph 14 of the reply statement, we dispose of this application directing the respondents to consider the applicants for engagement at the Sub Divisional level depending on the necessity of casual workers and strictly to the extent justified and on their satisfying the legal requirement including registration with employment exchange etc. There is no order as to costs.”
The petitioners had thereafter approached this Court by filing WPC 24775/2004 contending that they were entitled to get continued work from the respondents. They had also relied on the directions in Ext.P2 extracted above. This Court has by Ext.P3 judgment disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:-
“The petitioners relied on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is produced as Ext.P2 in which certain directions were issued regarding the engagement of persons similarly placed like the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the said judgment has become final. So it is ordered that the directions in that judgment will govern the petitioners herein also.”
The petitioners had again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. 845/2011 and 849/2011. By an order dated 8.1.2014, the Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the applications directing the petitioners to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court for appropriate interim orders. Status quo was also directed to be maintained for a period of one month to enable the petitioners to move the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that though they have preferred I.A.26/2014 in I.D.33/2013 and I.A.27/2014 in I.D.33/2013, Exts.P9 and P10, no orders have been passed thereon till date. At the same time, it is alleged that the seventh petitioner has already been disengaged and the work that was being done by him is about to be given on contract to outsiders. The result would be that, the seventh petitioner would be rendered jobless. The petitioners apprehend that similar treatment would be meted out to the other petitioners also. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions in the matter.
3. According to Adv.Rekha Vasudevan who appears for the petitioners the impleading petition filed by the petitioners have been adjourned to a date in June for the reason that the same was opposed by the trade unions at whose instance the industrial dispute had been referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. Without getting the petitioners impleaded it is not possible to obtain any interim orders as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The situation therefore has left the petitioners with no remedy in the matter. They are not able to obtain any relief either from the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.
4. According to Adv.Saji Varghese who appears for respondents 2 to 4, the petitioners were being engaged only in a situation where a large number of land line connections had to be provided to the consumers. The demand for land line connections have reduced drastically with the popularity of the mobile phones. As a result, there is no work available, to be allotted to the petitioners. Whatever little work that arise are got done through independent contractors. Therefore, the respondents are not in a position to allot any work to the petitioners. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1} the claim of the petitioners is untenable.
5. Heard. It appears that the petitioners were being engaged on casual basis over a number of years in the past. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court that cannot confer any right on the petitioners to claim regular appointment. It is for the said reason that, the Central Administrative Tribunal had relegated them to their remedy before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. The petitioners have also invoked the said jurisdiction. It is true that no orders have been passed on the applications Exts.P9 and P10 filed by the petitioners. I notice from Ext.P2 order that what the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed earlier was only to consider them for engagement, depending on the necessity of casual workers, strictly to the extent justified, on satisfying the legal requirements including registration of employment. In view of the submission of the counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that no work is available for the seventh petitioner I am not satisfied that any direction to provide work to the seventh petitioner could be issued. In Ext.P3 what has been directed by this Court is only to abide by the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter by Ext.P8 the Central Administrative Tribunal has relegated the petitioners to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. Therefore, the earlier direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be said to be subsisting. In Ext.P8, it has been ordered that the earlier direction would continue for a period of one month for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to move the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. It is for the petitioners to apprise the said Court of the necessity of continuing the interim order and to obtain necessary directions. Since Exts.P9 and P10 are pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, I do not consider it expedient to issue any directions in this case.
6. Adv.Saji Varghese who appears for respondents 2 to 4 has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 29.8.2013 in WPC 21404/2012 by which, a similar writ petition filed by the BSNL Workers Union has been disposed of directing the union to pursue their remedies before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. The resultant position therefore is that, both this Court as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal have found that it is the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court that has to decide the issue. The petitioners have already moved the said court. The petitioners would have to seek appropriate reliefs or interim orders from the said court. Without prejudice to the above right of the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/